SAVES is not affiliated with Exit International / Dr Philip Nitschke and opposes the public availability of a 'peaceful pill'.

A national survey of 1,000 physicians reveals that 57% believe it is ethical to assist a person to die if making a rational choice due to unbearable suffering. The Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research and HCD Research, undertook a survey of doctors in response to a challenge to Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. This showed that 41% support the legalisation of physician assisted suicide under a wide range of circumstances, 30% support legalisation in certain cases, and 29% oppose it unequivocally.

Those surveyed represented doctors from Christian (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Christian and other), Jewish (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and secular) Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions. Factors informing their stance included their understanding of obligations as physicians (40%), general moral values (24%), their view of patient autonomy (20%), and religious beliefs (13%).

Information provided by NEW YORK (Business wire) March 3, 2005

Oregon – Seventh Annual Report on Physician Assisted Suicide
The seventh annual report from Portland Oregon on the Oregon assisted suicide law revealed a 12% decrease in the number of people utilizing the law. A total of 37 people took a lethal dose of drugs last year after requesting assistance from their doctors under the landmark law, which went into effect in 1998. There was also a decline in the number of requests for prescribed medication. The average age was 64 years and most had a college education, according to the report by the Oregon Department of Human Services. As in the past, most people suffered from cancer. Despite seven years of practice, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act remains under challenge by the Bush administration.

Also in USA the former Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that he would use the federal Controlled Substances Act to punish Oregon doctors who prescribe lethal doses of drugs under the Oregon law. But Oregon Attorney General immediately filed suit in federal court to prevent Ashcroft from interfering. U.S. District Judge Robert Jones agreed that states have regulated doctors since the nation was founded and there was nothing in the federal drug act to suggest Congress ever intended to give such authority to the attorney general; a ruling later affirmed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a final appeal, possibly in October, with a decision in 2006.

For further information see Oregon Department of Human Services: http://www.dhs.state.or.us

In December 2004 the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee for the Council of Europe approved the revised Marty Report on ‘Assistance to Patients at end of Life’. Following debate on 27th April 2005, the Council of Europe failed to adopt the report which sought to

• Study various approaches in other states
• Provide specific rights for patients including consent to and cessation of treatment
• Provide palliative care units where they do not exist
• Define in law the terms by which treatment may be discontinued and
• Promote public discussion on issues around end of life decision making.

The report recognised that member states were at different stages in addressing end of life issues and therefore did not seek any direct move to allow choice for voluntary euthanasia. Right to Die groups in Europe will continue to pursue their objectives with the relevant bodies.

In Britain a woman at the centre of a High Court judgment has been assisted to die in Switzerland. This followed the court lifting a ban on her husband accompanying her abroad, leaving the decision of whether or not to prosecute to the Crown Prosecutor and police. This is a significant judgment in respect of public policy and the legal standing of the Suicide Act.